Of course, “balanced treatment” and “equal time” bills for “creation science” led to the 1987 SCOTUS decision in Edwards v. Aguillard that ruled “creation science” as unconstitutional. Wise’s bill, if worded as stated in the article, is likely to provide a complementary court case for “intelligent design”.

Wise said that if the Legislature passes the bill, he wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a legal challenge.

“You just never know. They use the courts all the time. I guess if they have enough money they can get it in the courts,” he said. “Someplace along the line you’ve got to be able to make a value judgment of what it is you think is the appropriate thing.”

Sen. Wise, just a note… if “intelligent design” creationism were able to make a convincing case to the scientific community, there wouldn’t be any issue about it being suitable as accountable science content for the public school science classrooms. But IDC is clearly religious antievolution, a narrow sectarian viewpoint without scientific standing or accountability, that you are inappropriately trying to insert by the political process rather than having it demonstrate its merit. People end up using the courts because of the bad behavior of people like you. It is where they can get redress for what you’ve done. It is not unseemly behavior on their part to take up the only route for redress that you have left open to them.

And if it comes to it, I hope to render my assistance to those who will oppose you in court, much as I did in 2005 for the Kitzmiller v. DASD case in Pennsylvania.

3 thoughts on “Florida: Reliving the Past”

I’ve asked this before in other comment threads and forums but never heard an answer. Is it possible for people (Florida residents, in this case) to sue a person like State senator Stephen Wise for costing them money with this law which is guaranteed to lose in court? Or are they protected by a law regarding their perofrmance of their job (however poorly in this case)?

State Sen. Stephen Wise, a Jacksonville Republican, said he plans to introduce a bill to require teachers who teach evolution to also discuss the idea of intelligent design.

This is really going to make Pipsqueak, Esq. (Casey Luskin) freak out. Imagine, someone wanting to mandate the teaching of ID. That’s not the party line Senator (ironically named) Wise. Read the DI technical papers…and by that I mean press releases…a little more.

Mostly government officials are personally off-limits for lawsuits, unless what is at issue is malfeasance or other abuse of power. It doesn’t seem likely that proposing inane, money-wasting, proselytizing legislation will be considered flat-out malfeasance, even if it ought to be.

Comments are closed.

Loading

Money Stuff

Donate a bit to help me keep the Austringer weblog and the other projects I pay for out of my pocket going.

I consider this weblog an extension of my living room in cyberspace. If you enter a comment that I wouldn't find acceptable in my living room, I'm likely to boot both you and your comment. Fair warning, OK?

Because of the above, I exercise prior restraint. I approve comments when I can get online. Currently, this does not include weekday working hours. Be patient; if you have entered a reasonable comment, it will be approved as I get the opportunity to see it.

For a lightly moderated forum on evolution/creation issues, please visit After the Bar Closes at AntiEvolution.org. This web bulletin board picks up where the Fidonet Evolution Echo (founded by me in 1991) left off.

Disclaimer

This is my personal weblog. It is a place where you can find my opinions and comments. It is not a place where you can find the opinions and stances of my employer.